Comparing bibliometric tools for research assessment from a CRIS point of view

Abstract

For many years already, the CRIS has played a central role in the research assessment at Wageningen University & Research (WUR) (Van Veller et al., 2010). However, the currently used methodology, based on the Essential Science Indicators (ESI) (Clarivate Analytics), has some major drawbacks. The main limitation is the normalisation of the indicators to 22 very broad categories from ESI. For this reason, an evaluation of alternative bibliometric tools was necessary. WUR Library maintains the CRIS, which is of high quality (Fonderman & Van der Togt, 2016) and therefore a comparison of systems could be done relatively easy. In this study, we look at the methodology of the current system (Staff Publications) and compare it to three available commercial systems (InCites, SciVal, and Dimensions) and what data and quality checks are needed in the CRIS to easily get citation data from these commercial systems.